Politicians’ willingness to agree: evidence from the interactions in twitter of Chilean deputies

References

• Andris, C., Lee, D., Hamilton, M. J., Martino, M., Gunning, C. E., & Selden, J. A. (2015). The rise of partisanship and super-cooperators in the us house of representatives. PloS one, 10(4), e0123507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The annals of statistics, 4, 1236–1239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of economic growth: Implications of the global evidence for Chile. Cuadernos de economía 36 , 443–478.
   Google Scholar
• Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bølstad, J., & Dinas, E. (2017). A categorization theory of spatial voting: How the center divides the political space. British Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 829–850. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonica, A. (2013). Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 294–311. doi:10.1111/ajps.12014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonilla, C. A., Carlin, R. E., Love, G. J., & Méndez, E. S. (2011). Social or political cleavages? A spatial analysis of the party system in post-authoritarian Chile. Public Choice, 146(1–2), 9–21. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9580-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, G., & Hamlin, A. (1998). Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice, 95(1), 149–175. doi:10.1023/A:1004936203144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunker, K. (2020). How electoral designers fail: The contextual straightjackets of reform. Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Busch, K. B. (2016). Estimating parties’ left-right positions: Determinants of voters’ perceptions’ proximity to party ideology. Electoral Studies, 41, 159–178. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media, Barcelona (Vol. 5, p. 1–2).
   Google Scholar
• Dow, J. K. (1998). A spatial analysis of candidate competition in dual member districts: The 1989 chilean senatorial elections. In Kluwer Academic Publishers (Ed.), Empirical studies in comparative politics (pp. 233–256). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dow, J. K. (2001). A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections. Electoral Studies, 20(1), 109–125. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00041-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fábrega, J., González, J., & Lindh, J. (2018). Polarization and electoral incentives: The end of the chilean consensus democracy, 1990-2014. Latin American Politics and Society, 60(4), 49–68. doi:10.1017/lap.2018.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. (1966). Essays in positive economics (Tech. Rep.). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Busby Grant, J. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604. doi:10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics. Communication and the Evolution of Society, 1, 2–4.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: An author’s reflections. Denv. ULRev, 76, 937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haberrmas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halberstam, Y., & Knight, B. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from twitter. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 73–88. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon, N., Fisman, R., & Kamenica, E. (2019). Peer effects in legislative voting. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 11(4), 156–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. J., & Snyder, J. M. (1996). Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators (Tech. Rep.). National bureau of economic research.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, M., & Mourifié, I. (2013). Euclidean revealed preferences: Testing the spatial voting model. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(4), 650–666. doi:10.1002/jae.1276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1996). Ideology and the theory of political choice. USA: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, M. (2014). Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 207–223. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-061413-041905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. L. (2015). What is ideology? Sociologia, Problemase Práticas, 77, 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyarzún-Serrano, L. (2020). Chile facing the pandemic and social unrest: Crisis as an opportunity? Latin American Policy, 11(2), 320–326. doi:10.1111/lamp.12199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384. doi:10.2307/2111172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, H. V., Alves, L. G., Martins, A. F., Lenzi, E. K., & Perc, M. (2018). The dynamical structure of political corruption networks. Journal of Complex Networks, 6(6), 989–1003. doi:10.1093/comnet/cny002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riquelme, F., González-Cantergiani, P., & Godoy, G. (2018). Voting power of political parties in the senate of Chile during the whole binomial system period: 1990-2017. arXiv preprint, arXiv, 1808.07854 .
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., … Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. doi:10.1111/ajps.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruth, S. P. (2016). Clientelism and the utility of the left-right dimension in latin america. Latin American Politics and Society, 58(1), 72–97. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2016.00300.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solon, G., Haider, S. J., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). What are we weighting for? Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 301–316. doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Neither hayek nor habermas. Public Choice, 134(1–2), 87–95. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9202-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. R., & Bosworth, W. (2020). Agreeing to disagree politically. New Political Economy 26 , 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trilling, L. (2009). Sincerity and authenticity. USA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wachs, J., Hannák, A., Vörös, A., & Daróczy, B. (2017). Why do men get more attention? Exploring factors behind success in an online design community. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media, Montreal (Vol. 11, pp. 1–2).
   Google Scholar
• Waugh, A. S., Pei, L., Fowler, J. H., Mucha, P. J., & Porter, M. A. (2009). Party polarization in congress: A network science approach. Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Friend, A. J., Traud, A. L., Porter, M. A., Fowler, J. H., & Mucha, P. J. (2008). Community structure in congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 387(7), 1705–1712. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2007.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar